The risk is that Mozilla is in a position to add features and stability at a rate that smaller developers cannot possibly replicate. By doing so they risk becoming the defacto standard (embrace/extend). Then they get to dictate what the entire platform should or should not do. And you’re either on board or left in the dust. And if Mozilla decides that moderating a social network is too much of a liability, then we’re at extinguish.

To be frank, I’m so jaded by big players in this late stage capitalist world that I don’t trust anyone I might otherwise be fine with, like Mozilla.

I mean, we all probably said similar things about Google 20 years ago. It was a liked company that brought a lot of cool innovations to the web. Or even relatively more recently with Chrome. At launch it was liked, but now it’s weaponized.

To be fair, there are far, FAR worse players than Mozilla. I might even be so far as to be convinced they have benign interests at heart at the moment. But corruption always follows domination.

I just read the entire article and I don’t see why Mozilla really wants in on the Fediverse. It covers a lot of how it wants in, but not the driving motivation.

My best guess is they want to be the next Facebook/Twitter. They see a window and think it’s not something to miss.

Never forget: “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”, even if it’s from a relatively liked company like Mozilla.

I feel like I’m reading clickbait.

For me, with biking, I don’t just need a destination, but an objective.

So I’ll bike to get blood work done, then bike home. That’s a good 20 miles with a break in the middle for something productive.

Sometimes it’s the grocery store, or the post office, or the pharmacy. I start associating local destinations with exercise… as opposed to exercise for the sake of it.